Environmental
Management in Australia
Australia's environmental record is appalling. The sheer level of moronic environmental protection "solutions" defies belief. As a consequence of these solutions, Australia has become a paradise for feral animals. It is the only continent to have a wild population of camels. It is the only continent where pigs, horses, and cows breed with nothing but desertification to check population growth. It is the only continent with cats spread completely across it, and where the fox is almost at the apex of the food chain. Worst of all, Australia is also the only continent on earth where people are burning bushland in order to "slow" global warming, and to "unlock" moisture in the soil. So while ecologists from other countries are saying that the world needs more forests, or mulch to lock moisture in the soil, Australia's scientists are saying it needs a good flame thrower.
The stupidity of Australia's "environmentalists" can be attributed to three main problems; monetary agendas, ignorant specialisation, and ideology. Like a cancerous growth, the three problems have infected environmentalists, and resulted in polices that are destroying Australia.
Monetary agendas are perhaps the biggest problem. Like everyone else, environmentalists need to make a buck, hence they create solutions that are conducive to gaining funding, instead of solving the problem. Western Australia's "Rabbit-proof Fence" can be put into this category. In theory, the 1,833 km long fence was built to keep rabbits out of Western Australia. Although it was a "moralistic" project, it never had any chance of keeping out that singular pregnant female that would have made it obsolete. Rabbits simply burrowed underneath, or the fence was knocked down by camels, and the rabbits went over the top. Environmentalist then explained that it didn't work because someone left the gate open, or they weren't given enough money for the upkeep. A similar problem can be seen in the management of Koalas on Kangaroo Island. According to ecologists, the Koalas have reached plague proportions and are eating the gum trees to extinction. The solution is pay them to relocate, cull or sterilise some of the Koalas. Presumably, they want to be funded to manage the Koalas in this way forever. At $140 per koala, it is quite a lucrative "solution".
An alternative would be to just isolate some of the threatened gum trees and wrap hard plastic around them to prevent the Koalas climbing up. Unfortunately, the easy solution is a cheap solution and no one that is conducive to money making for environmentalists. Not surprisingly, it is not favoured by the environmentalists.
Ignorant specialisation is another problem. In the process of getting their PhD, some scientists become so focussed in their speciality that they lose the ability to consider the bigger picture. The development of the myxomatosis virus can be put into this category. The creation of genocidal virus that could selectively eradicate the majority of a singular species showed very good "science". However, the failure to consider that rabbits were supporting a network of predators, and that the rapid removal of rabbits would cause the predators to attack alternative species, showed that the specialised scientists lacked the ability to consider the consequences of their actions. Furthermore, failing to consider that rabbits would eventually recover, and migrate into regions in which an over-supply of predators had caused the extinction of rabbit competitors, before themselves going extinct themselves, was also a sign of people lacking an ability to consider the holistic picture. In a nutshell, the myxomatosis virus was not a solution. All it did was interfere with the ecosystem's adapatation to the presence of rabbits. Ironically, it interfered in a way that was very helpful for rabbits. As the rabbits are very fast breeders, a cycle of population explosions followed by population collapses, is helpful for the rabbits moving towards complete domination of the ecosystem.
The final problem amongst environmentalists is ideology. The very definition of protecting the environment is an ideological conception. In the minds of most environmental scientists, protecting the environment means trying to recreate the ecosystem like it was prior to 1788. According to Dr A. J. Brown, from Griffith Law School;
"Today, for environment groups and land management agencies, wilderness is a land use classification which relates specifically to growing respect for the non-commercial, non-industrial, non-colonial values of those landscapes that have been least disturbed since 1788. Most recently, the Commonwealth Government discussion paper on wilderness protection defined a wilderness as:
"... an area that is, or can be restored to be, a sufficient size to enable the long-term protection of its natural systems and biological diversity; substantially undisturbed by colonial and modern technological society; and remote at its core from points of mechanised access and other evidence of colonial and modern technological society. "
The environmentalist's ideology is one that excludes themselves, and humans, from the ecosystem. To maintain the ideology, they define Aborigines in an ambigous way. Sometimes, the Aborigines are accorded the status of animals. For example, any extinction under the Aboriginal rein is deemed to be a natural extinction and not to be undone. It is for his reason that there is ideological opposition to reintroducing the Tasmanian Devil to its mainland habitats. However, if a native animal went extinct from a region since 1788, the environmental scientists want to reintroduce it. In the minds of the environmental scientists, the reintroduction would be undoing a human mistake. In their mind, Aborigines just aren't human so their mistakes are not to be undone.
While Aborigines are usually defined as animals, occassionally they are given the status of humans, and environmental scientists believe that need to take their place. For example, because Aborigines used to burn the bush, environmental scientists feel that they now need to burn the bush. Likewise, because Aborigines kept the populations of native animals down by hunting them, environment scientists believe they need to keep populations down by culling them. (Usually, environmental scientists consider which is most profitable when deciding whether to define Aborigines as humans or animals.)
The ideology of creating a "pure" pre-1788 ecosystem also affects how "pests" are judged and whether decisions are made in regards to their eradication. For example, when deciding whether to eradicate cats or rabbits from the ecosystem, the environmental scientists do not judge whether the cats or rabbits have struck a balance with the ecosystem. Instead, they simply see the rabbits and cats and then work out the best methods to kill them. Unfortunately, if the rabbits or cats are in balance with the ecosystem, eliminating them pushes the ecosystem back into imbalance.
Essentially, ideology has resulted in environmental scientists being governed by an egotistical aesthetic. They want to shape the environment in a way that is aesthetically pleasing for them. They want to kill all non-native trees because they want to have native views that are free of them. Likewise, they want to kill all-non native animals because they want views of Kangaroos hoping along the plains, and they don't want those views corrupted by the occasional rabbit, deer or brumby. Native animals don't necessarily share the environmental scientists' hatred of everything foreign. For example, Goannas, Quolls, and Hawks are quite fond of rabbits. Likewise, Possums love the juicy foreign trees that are far more nutritious than eucalypts. Unfortunately, the environmental scientists decide what is best for themselves, not what is best for the ecosystem. Furthermore, they define themselves as the masters of the ecosystem. They find it difficult to take a step back and conceive of an ecosystem that can take care of itself.
As much as it is ideologically confronting for environmental scientists to admit, a bio-diverse ecosystem that is adaptable to change is not one and the same as a pre-1788 ecosystem. Furthermore, the pre-1788 ecosystems were as much human creations as golf courses are today. Trying to selectively perceive Aborigines as animals is not going to change that fact.
On the positive side, the level of moronic thinking is not uniform. Some scientists have shown that they are prepared to sacrifice monetary gain, have an ability to think holistically, and would prefer for the ecosystem to take care of itself instead of always being protected with the human hand. One such scientist is Professor Chris Johnson, from James Cook University. Johnson has argued in favour of reintroducing Dingos, Quolls and the Devils to the various mainland ecosystems that humans have eradicated them from. Professor Johnson has stressed that native predator communities need to be rebuilt as they have the ability to remain in balance with native prey. As native predators replace the feral predators, or reduce their numbers, native prey is able to rebound.
Johnson's ideology is a step away from the paternalist ideology that governs mainstream environmental science. It is an ideology that tries to make the ecosystem capable of finding a balance with itself without the need for humans to constantly interfer.
